2010 list scenarios

[Guest hangon007]

Maybe reading this article would give you a more accurate idea of how the draft is affected.

http://bigfooty.com/forum/blog.php?b=783

I think it has been posted on another thread somewhere, but it relates to this too.

Beyond that, I don't think anyone can help you.

Nice article ... think you need to re-read it and take note of a few of her points. Many people around here fail to understand them.

Where does she say - "I could take or leave Pick 34. It would be around Pick 50 in any other draft."

If fact she says the opposite ... I quote her "The other night I did a list and came up with 35 that I would draft in a second." ... ooopps

Stop just agreeing with your "mates" and start thinking for yourself.

Edited October 23, 2009 by hangon007

[Guest hangon007]

Considering you attributed the quote to me, yes there is a misquote.

Naming the kids or not naming the kids will prove nothing.

That you are asking him to do so proves that you haven't fully grasped the concept of the weakened draft at all.

You are missing the point - I have made comment else where on the site about my opinion of this draft. And contrary to you belief you have my views all wrong.

See link ... here

Edited October 23, 2009 by hangon007

[furious d 447]

My sig explains how this draft is compromised.

I could take or leave Pick 34. It would be around Pick 50 in any other draft.

I could be wrong rpfc, I'm no expert, but I thought this draft was reduced to 12 months. Previous drafts were 16 or 18 months I thought, otherwise there'd have been no such thing as underage picks. Jack Watts and Sam Blease for example were underage last year and would have been available again this year if they hadn't been picked up. In a 12 month draft pool that wouldn't be possible.

Agree on pick 34. If we add 5 players to our senior list that'll be 20 players turned over in 3 years. Half the list in 3 years.

Bartram has weaknesses in his game but he's only 21. Whoever we pick up at 34 is likely to have deficiencies and inexpierience. Sure there'll be some late gems, but most in the know seem to agree that this draft pool has been weakened by the removal of the underage kids. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that 34 in this draft equates to something around 50 in a normal draft. If the club doesn't think it will get someone better than who we have to delist then it shouldn't delist anyone.

I like what the club is doing with 1 year contracts. If only we had done this last year we wouldn't be in this dilemma over pick 34, Juice is a very lucky man. Pressure will be on this year with so many coming out of contract next year. Keep the fringe players hungry, if other clubs come sniffing we can improve our draft position in the compromised drafts coming up. As the talent pool becomes diluted with the new clubs entering the competition, coupled with our rise up the ladder, the value of our fringe players increases.

[rpfc 27,692]

I could be wrong rpfc, I'm no expert, but I thought this draft was reduced to 12 months. Previous drafts were 16 or 18 months I thought, otherwise there'd have been no such thing as underage picks. Jack Watts and Sam Blease for example were underage last year and would have been available again this year if they hadn't been picked up. In a 12 month draft pool that wouldn't be possible.

Agree on pick 34. If we add 5 players to our senior list that'll be 20 players turned over in 3 years. Half the list in 3 years.

Bartram has weaknesses in his game but he's only 21. Whoever we pick up at 34 is likely to have deficiencies and inexpierience. Sure there'll be some late gems, but most in the know seem to agree that this draft pool has been weakened by the removal of the underage kids. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that 34 in this draft equates to something around 50 in a normal draft. If the club doesn't think it will get someone better than who we have to delist then it shouldn't delist anyone.

I like what the club is doing with 1 year contracts. If only we had done this last year we wouldn't be in this dilemma over pick 34, Juice is a very lucky man. Pressure will be on this year with so many coming out of contract next year. Keep the fringe players hungry, if other clubs come sniffing we can improve our draft position in the compromised drafts coming up. As the talent pool becomes diluted with the new clubs entering the competition, coupled with our rise up the ladder, the value of our fringe players increases.

Well said, FD.

But every year except this year, the draft age moves back 12 months in eligibility. Always 12 months. In 2009, the eligibility rules have been altered to give GC17 every advantage at picking up talent in 2010 - the eligibility age has increased by 4 months and that means there is only an 8 months block of new talent to choose from.

This article speaks of BP's misgivings about the draft.

[Guest hangon007]

Well said, FD.

But every year except this year, the draft age moves back 12 months in eligibility. Always 12 months. In 2009, the eligibility rules have been altered to give GC17 every advantage at picking up talent in 2010 - the eligibility age has increased by 4 months and that means there is only an 8 months block of new talent to choose from.

This article speaks of BP's misgivings about the draft.

At last we have some common ground ... Think we all agree thats its going to be a "weakned" draft ... thats good at least.

Now its just a matter to what extent.

The important point with this article was when it was written .. "9:57 AM Fri 15 May, 2009" ...

BP at that point would not have some very, very important points to note

a/ Draft order ie finishing positions

b/ Complete trades in trade week

As I said in another thread ... "this rule change does not effect all clubs equally because of actual adjusted pick order after trades and Priority pick!"

Plus the added information obtained from the championships does then also assists in developing a clear picture of potential ranking order.

These are the points you just fail to understand ... again as I said in the other thread. ... and I will re-quote them here ...

Now taking us as the example - our pick order is 1,2,11,18,34,50,66,82 etc

Bingo - look where our picks are situated. I'm suggesting this rule change does not effect all clubs equally because of actual adjusted pick order after trades and Priority pick!

Its "highly" likely Picks 1 & 2 = no effect . debatable but "highly" likely.

Picks 11 & 18 = marginal minor effect ...

Picks 34 = larger effect because in reality a 3rd pick in this years draft - talent pool is closer to a mid or late at worst ( with toooooo many "if" "buts" and"maybes") 3rd round pick in previous years

Pick 50 = larger effect again because a 4th round pick in this draft - talent pool is closer to a 5th "ish" round pick in previous years. Important to note 5th round draft pick have a very low statistically probability of success.

Now I must also point out that its all - comparative - all teams are in the same boat. So if our pick 11 is marginally weaker, so is pick 12, then pick 13, then pick 14 so on & so on. So in real terms we are no worse off than any other side.

You just dont get the follow on effect ... "logical flow on effect if you broke the 20-25 kids down you would expect them to disperse at approximately 4-5 kids per round ... baring in mind most clubs pass their 6th round picks on average."

So I will go back and say it again - Your statement is wrong Pick 34 in this draft does not = Pick 50 in other drafts.

IMHO its probably closer to pick 40-42ish ... hope that makes my position clearer.

I should also add ... IMHO the club has been very, very smart in its handling of the rule change ... we are only marginally effected ... unlike other clubs :D

Plus a small margin of luck ... again I will quote my other thread ... thanks Jordan.

Edited October 23, 2009 by hangon007

[rpfc 27,692]

At last we have some common ground ... Think we all agree thats its going to be a "weakned" draft ... thats good at least.

Now its just a matter to what extent.

The important point with this article was when it was written .. "9:57 AM Fri 15 May, 2009" ...

BP at that point would not have some very, very important points to note

a/ Draft order ie finishing positions

b/ Complete trades in trade week

As I said in another thread ... "this rule change does not effect all clubs equally because of actual adjusted pick order after trades and Priority pick!"

Plus the added information obtained from the championships does then also assist in developing a clear picture of potential ranking order.

These are the points you just fail to understand ... again as I said in the other thread. ... and I will re-quote them here ...

You just dont get the follow on effect ... "logical flow on effect if you broke the 20-25 kids down you would expect them to disperse at approximately 4-5 kids per round ... baring in mind most clubs pass their 6th round picks on average."

So I will go back and say it again - Your statement is wrong Pick 34 does not = Pick 50 in this draft.

IMHO its probably closer to pick 40-42ish ... hope that makes my position clearer.

Well that's backtracking of the highest order.

Let me get this straight - you have gone through all of this for the sake of 8-ish places in the draft?!

Oh, yes Hannibal, I am making Land unreadable...

[Guest hangon007]

Well that's backtracking of the highest order.

Let me get this straight - you have gone through all of this for the sake of 8-ish places in the draft?!

Oh, yes Hannibal, I am making Land unreadable...

Nope I have not back tracked 1 inch ... my argument is 100% consistent ... you are the one that might have to back-track and re read what you wrote.

Dont forget the "if" "buts" and "maybes" ... also dont forget Emmas assertion on BF that she is being told "its a needs draft" ... therefore further reducing the 8 picks to say maybe 4-5 ... but thats probably another point many might not understand the implications.

Edited October 23, 2009 by hangon007

[Guest hangon007]

Let me get this straight - you have gone through all of this for the sake of 8-ish places in the draft?!

Oh I nearly forgot ... let me get it straight ... you are quoting an article that is like 5 months old!!! And lacks the key vital information!

Yet you keep pedaling the same rubbish!

Edited October 23, 2009 by hangon007

[Keyser Söze 0]

You are a damn fool.

You don't even know what you've been arguing about; you've just been happy to be arguing.

[rpfc 27,692]

Let's try this for the last time, because I want to give you a chance to redeem yourself.

25 to 33 percent of those normally picked are ineligible, HO7. If there are 75 kids picked in a normal draft 19 to 25 of them would be from the 4 month block that is now exclusive to the 2010 draft. That means that the 50th pick is akin to approx. the 75th pick (and I am so very sorry to have used language that suggested my assertion '34 = 50' was based in anything other than a mathematical approximation - Pick Number x 1.5).

Looking at one of our picks (that is easier for me to do my rudimentary mathematical equation) - Pick 18 - we would have approx. 6 - 9 players ineligible that would be picked before the player picked at 18 if there was a normal 12 month block. Therefore, that pick is approx. worth Pick 24 to Pick 27 relatively to talent in other years.

This really is not that difficult to get your ahead around is it, HO7?

[Guest hangon007]

Let's try this for the last time, because I want to give you a chance to redeem yourself.

25 to 33 percent of those normally picked are ineligible, HO7. If there are 75 kids picked in a normal draft 19 to 25 of them would be from the 4 month block that is now exclusive to the 2010 draft. That means that the 50th pick is akin to approx. the 75th pick (and I am so very sorry to have used language that suggested my assertion '34 = 50' was based in anything other than a mathematical approximation - Pick Number x 1.5).

Looking at one of our picks (that is easier for me to do my rudimentary mathematical equation) - Pick 18 - we would have approx. 6 - 9 players ineligible that would be picked before the player picked at 18 if there was a normal 12 month block. Therefore, that pick is approx. worth Pick 24 to Pick 27 relatively to talent in other years.

This really is not that difficult to get your ahead around is it, HO7?

Hahaha ... I will give you the same chance to admit you are wrong.

Or alternatively go and have a "chat" with BP again ... this time get him to explain to you the principle of "the glass is half full not half empty" ...

He might even take the time to explain people are picked on ability not exclusively on age! But again thats a point you and a few of your mates might fail to understand.

You and your mates need to start thinking positive for once in your lifes ... your "old school thinkers" ... the club has moved on. We are at the "dawn" of a positive new era.

Your "type" are not supporters your detractors. Stop thinking negatively.

IMHO ... the club has handled the situation perfectly and fully minimised the impact of the rule change.

Your pedaling an old outdated point when not all facts where on the table ...

Then when challenged you resort to keep pedaling ... Look its ok to say ... look 5 months ago this was the situation ... but things have changed!

The rule change is a minor change ... big deal.

Have enjoyed the discussion thanks for your time.

Edited October 23, 2009 by hangon007

[Guest hangon007]

You are a damn fool.

You don't even know what you've been arguing about; you've just been happy to be arguing.

Your a p(m)uppet ...

No you cant see the forest for the trees!!!

[Guest hangon007]

Your a p(m)uppet ...

No you cant see the forest for the trees!!!

Look I take back that reply ... I apologise. I'm sorry!

All I'm saying is RPFC is pedaling an old outdated argument ... quoted from BP when all the facts where not on the table.

His maths is wrong in my opinion ... his formula is outdated and far toooo simplistic ... with way toooo many "if" "buts" and "maybes."

Its quite often the case when somebody comes along and challenges a so called "accepted theory" ... others want to shoot them down. I accept that.

Edited October 23, 2009 by hangon007

[Keyser Söze 0]

Look I take back that reply ... I apologise. I'm sorry!

All I'm saying is RPFC is pedaling an old outdated argument ... quoted from BP when all the facts where not on the table.

His maths is wrong in my opinion ... his formula is outdated and far toooo simplistic ... with way toooo many "if" "buts" and "maybes."

Its quite often the case when somebody comes along and challenges a so called "accepted theory" ... others want to shoot them down. I accept that.

My understanding is that he concedes its simplistic and its purely a rough guide to how the draft has been affected.

What he is saying is not meant to be mathematically accurate - the very nature of the draft contains so many variables that this is impossible.

You're arguing over a number of spots - does anybody really care and take it that seriously?

Of course pick 34 doesn't equal pick 50, it would equal more like pick 40-55, but in the same token you could take a player with pick 34 that in a hypothetical retrospective draft you would take at pick 15.

Its an accepted theory purely for ease of understanding, but nobody is stupid enough to think its that simple.

Just move on... Please.

[rpfc 27,692]

My understanding is that he concedes its simplistic and its purely a rough guide to how the draft has been affected.

What he is saying is not meant to be mathematically accurate - the very nature of the draft contains so many variables that this is impossible.

You're arguing over a number of spots - does anybody really care and take it that seriously?

Of course pick 34 doesn't equal pick 50, it would equal more like pick 40-55, but in the same token you could take a player with pick 34 that in a hypothetical retrospective draft you would take at pick 15.

Its an accepted theory purely for ease of understanding, but nobody is stupid enough to think its that simple.

Just move on... Please.

Thank god, some sense.

Moderators close this thread.

[Guest hangon007]

Just move on... Please.

No problems good idea ...

[Redleg 38,636]

No problems good idea ...

Anyone seen any good movies lately?

[Guest hangon007]

Anyone seen any good movies lately?

Nope but we had a great day at Cox plate yesterday ... :lol:

Sunline!

[Old Gregg 1]

Hmmm.

This thread has really deteriorated.

*awkward silence*

So how's this weather, eh?

[Guest hangon007]

Hmmm.

This thread has really deteriorated.

*awkward silence*

So how's this weather, eh?

Yeah must confess I've been waiting for the next installment of his mind games. However, you are right an "*awkward silence*" has descended upon us.

I'm just waiting for confirmation if it is going to be Queensberry rules or he might want to settle it over something like a chess board ... time will tell.

Edited October 25, 2009 by hangon007